Is nuclear power the way to go?

**deathgodusmc** · 08-23-12, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by SlytherN

For those who understand this subject better than I, I would like to know the proven dangers and body counts of nuclear power vs lets say oil. Do we also include military action to either conquer or protect the energy source. On a side note from what I understand the containment wall at Fukushima was nowhere near as capable of containing radioactivity as most plants in the US.(Double walled) On top of that Japan was aware of this danger. There are risk involved with nuclear power but is it really more dangerous. Kinda like flying as a mode a travel. Many are fearful of flying but flying has proven to be the safest mode of transportation.

Thats almost an impossible set of numbers to come up with. It would take a LONG time to come up with all the deaths from coal mining and oil drilling and so forth. Nuclear mishaps however are rarely public viewing occasions. The only thing you will be able to find power plant issues and nuclear weapon deaths. Every other nuclear power source ie military in use to the best of my knowledge is classified when they have a problem/death.

**Xavsnipe** · 08-23-12, 02:49 PM

Plus it is uncertain what ramifications radioactive disasters have caused on deformities and diseases in later generations after the ones directly affected from the exposure.

**Xavsnipe** · 08-23-12, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

We would all melt if we went outside. That´s how dangerous it is. The sun would extinguish as well.

6 billion people have died from nuclear radioactivity.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Yes...there are roughly 1 billion human beings on the planet left now.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I've been saying that for years.

lol

**deathgodusmc** · 08-23-12, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Plus it is uncertain what ramifications radioactive disasters have caused on deformities and diseases in later generations after the ones directly affected from the exposure.

Very true. Japan still has deformations from when we dropped the bombs.

**Xavsnipe** · 08-23-12, 02:58 PM

And Chernobyl children as well.

**AetheLove** · 08-23-12, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I've been saying that for years.

And you're not alone.

Lots of people have a strong preference for having private business - not government - be responsible for these things. I don't think that's crazy (usually). But a lot of them want to legislate away the costs of that business in a haphazard way and still claim that it's better because it's a "market solution", and that IS crazy (or stupid).

So I find that it's good to make that distinction early. It saves some of us from having a long discussion only to find at the end that neither one knew where the other was coming from.

... and when I say "some of us" I mean "me."

Æ

**-Lazarus-** · 08-23-12, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I am absolutely not saying that. I haven't said anything about fish. I am saying that this unsourced claim by you is incorrect.

Well I mentioned FISH as well as other food products, didn't I? In response to my comment, you said:

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yeah, um... wrong.

And then you linked to this: USGS Measures Fallout from Fukushima in US NADP Precipitation Samples which is about fallout numbers and has not a fucking thing to do with what I've been saying. Then later, you went on to say:

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I am absolutely not saying that. I haven't said anything about fish. I am saying that this unsourced claim by you,

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-
Radioactive isotopes have been measured at hundreds of times higher than the safe limits all over the west coast of the United States.

is incorrect.

So first you took my statement on measurements and tried to use the fallout measurements as your example, without asking for clarification of what I meant which was the food supply. This is the most common way radioactive isotopes generated by humans are consumed by people. Then later you didn't even address my later posts which made my comments even more clear for you. Granted, I suppose I could have been more clear in my first post but a layman with an hour of research on GOOGLE could understand that. Add that to your purposefully ignoring my later comments to continue to try and argue... And well, that equals trollish behavior.

You asked for a source...

There are many, many other sources of this information but here is one: Fukushima Radiation On US West Coast - Mainstream Media Coverup - coupmedia.org

Here is a quote:

After the North American governments refused to fund testing, oceanographer Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the non-profit Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Mass, along with Nicholas Fisher, a marine sciences professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and other concerned scientists, managed to secure private funding for a Pacific research voyage. The results?Cesium levels in the Pacific had initially gone up an astonishing 45 million times above pre-accident levels. The levels then declined rapidly for a while, but after that, they unexpectedly levelled off.
In July, cesium levels stopped declining and remained stuck at 10,000 times above pre-accident levels.
This means the ocean isn’t diluting the radiation as expected. If it had been, cesium levels would have kept falling.
The finding suggests that radiation is still being released into the ocean long after the accident in March, 2011.

Well DAMN. Looks like the Fukushima tragedy will indeed kill people for generations.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I can take it, I just like to argue based on the merits of my argument, not though insults.
And yes, by all means, show me where I've insulted you by using my own quotes.

I'll get to that later tonight. And I wasn't just referring to you trolling when it comes to me. I was talking about your posts in general. It's going to take a while to compile.

And another thing:

You said:

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Did you even read the article? They didn't measure people for radiation exposure, they measured radiation directly, and found it to be well below the danger level. It directly contradicts your unsupported statement from the previous post.